F^9/ 




s^ 



A. 



HBRARYOFCUMun 



mil 



014 418 844 5 



Hollingier 

pH 83 

MB. Run K)3.2193 



F 291 
.B933 
Copy 2 



'fl:b2i^a:j^fl:£^& 



OF 



GOY. BULLOCK 



1^ ,il^ 



TO THE 



JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 

OF THE SENATE, 

RECONSTRUCTION OF GEORGIA. 

MARCH 9, 1870. 



,l« 




WASHINGTON : 

CHRONICLE PRINT, 511 NINTH STREET. 
1870. 



^ 
i 



The Honorable Chairman and members of the Judiciary 
Committee of the Senate: 

I have been placed in possession of a printed pamph- 
let containing a revised edition of the papers read beore 
3'oiir honorable committee, on the 9th of F(.brLiary lastj 
by Messrs J. H. Caldwell and J. E. Br3-ant, tooelher 
with an appendix containing a paper signed " N. L. 
Angier, Treasurer of Georgia," and entitled "Governor 
Bullock's financial operations," and also nine pages of 
printed matter under the following title : 

"Before the Judiciary Committee on Saturday, Feb- 
ruar}^ 12, 1870, Judge Gibson, on behalf of Governor 
Bullock, read an argument, to which Mr. Caldwell 
replied in substance as follows :" 

This reply of Mr. Caldwell, together with the paper 
signed by Angier, I desire to notice before your honora- 
ble committee shall have formed final conclusions and 
agreed upon a report in what is commonly known as 
the "Georgia Qjiestion." 

As the exact subject matter before the committee, by 
action of the Senate, does not appear in any of the 
printed papers which I have been able to obtain posses- 
sion of, I must admit that I have no very well defined 
information as to what branch of the "Georgia Qiiestion'* 
is formally before your honorable committee. 



4 

My first information that the affairs of Georgia were 
to be considered by your honorable committee was 
derived from the note of your honorable Chairman y 
dated the 6th day of February, informing me that Mr. 
J. H. Caldwell, C. K. Osgood, and others had applied 
to lay before your honorable committee certain facts in 
regard to the organization of the Legislature and the 
state of affairs in Georgia, and at the same time 
extending to me an invitation to be present on the follow- 
ing Wednesday, at ii o^clock. 

At that time Mr. Caldwell and Mr. Bryant appeared as- 
speakers, and to the "certain facts" (man} of which, by 
the way, proved to be very uncertain) in regard to the 
organization of the Legislature and the state of affairs in 
Georgia, reply was made by me and presented to your 
honorable committee in print, under dale of the loth of 
February, and will be found on pages 27 to 57, inclu- 
sive, of the pamphlet entitled " Georgia before the Sen- 
ate Judiciary Committee, February 9th, 1870," and to 
which the attention of your hoaorable committee is- 
respectfully invited. 

The statement, therefore, that "Judge Gibson ap- 
peared in behalf of Governor Bullock," is not correct. 
Judges Gibson, Harrell, and Parrott, together with Mr. 
Conley, the President of the Senate, and Mr. Tweedy, 
of the House, united in a communication to your honor- 
able committee, printed in a pamphlet entitled "The 
Admission of Georgia." 

These gentlemen are all men of high character and 
standing, and speak for themselves. While I agree 
with what they say in their communication, they do not 
represent me, more than they do every other Republic in 
in Georgia. It is not probable, however, that either of 
the gentlemen would have presented their views to your 



5 

honorable committee had it not been for the unwar- 
rantable and insolent assault made upon the character of 
Judge Gibson by Mr. Bryant in his remarks on the 9th 
instant. 

In my former communications to your honorable com- 
mittee, I endeavored to avoid, as far as possible, any 
remarks of a party or partisan character. It was my 
purpose to avoid speaking of either the Republican or 
the Democratic parties in this matter. But I hope that your 
honorable committee will overlook the impropriety of my 
doing so at this time, for it seems to be called for by the 
character of the communication to which I desire to 
reply. 

Mr. Caldwell assumes that under the former organiza- 
tion there was a Republican majority in the Lower 
House. He says : 

"There were several strict party votes among them that 
which elected the Speaker, from which it appeared that 
there was a Republican majority of one in the House," 
etc. "Since then, the Republican majority has been 
increased by the deaths which have occurred." 

The fact, however, is that a Republican was elected 
Speaker by the following vote : Hon. R. L. McWhorter, 

76 votes; W. P, Price, dem., 74 votes; W. F. Holden, 
rtp., [voted for by Mr. McWhorter,] one vote, making 

77 Republican votes to 74 Democratic votes, as will be 
lound recorded in the Journal of that House on page 12, 
under the old organization. This election took place on 
Saturday, and on the following Monday, at nine and 
a-half o'clock, a number of additional members having 
arrived^and been sworn in, the House proceeded to the 
election of a clerk, at which time, M. A. Hardin, Dem- 



6 

ocrat, received 83 votes, Mr. S. C. Johnson, Republican, 
received 78 votes. 

Tl.us the Republican vote had been increased by two, 
and the Democratic vote by thirteen. From that day 
until the present organization, there never was a Repub- 
lican majority in the House of Representatives. 

It was this same Lejjislature which Mr. Caldwell 
claims to have been republican, that, by a vote of 95 
5''eas to 43 nays, adopted a report which declared that 
John Long, of the County of Carroll, was eligible — a 
man who, as was shown by the report, prior to the late 
war held the offices of Justice of the Inferior Court and 
Clerk of the Superior Court, and during the rebellion 
held the office of County Treasurer. This is only a 
sample case ; many others equally, ineligible were by that 
House declared to be eligible. 

Mr. Caldwell asserts that " had each member been 
left to his own conscience in the late organization, to 
qualify or not, just as the law allowed him to do, etc., 
* * it is likely that a sufficient number would have 
refused to qualify to make a republican majorit}' in the 
two houses of 15 or 20." 

With the exception of the three men who w^ere declared 
to be ineligible by order of the General commanding the 
District, each member luas "left to his own conscience," 
etc., and had there been a rigid enforcement of a literal 
construction of the disqualifications fixed by the Act of 
December 22, or by the previous acts, which declared 
that no person disqualified by the third section of the 
Fourteenth Amendment shall hold office in either of the 
States named in that act, Georgia being one of them, 
there would have been at least thirteen other members 



excluded from the present organization who were per- 
mitted to participate in it. 

These thirteen persons took the oath prescribed in the 
Act of December 22, notwithstanding the fact that they 
were candidates for, and were elected to, offices under the 
State Government at an election held on the first Tuesday 
of January, 1861, and were commissioned in the offices 
to which they were elected on or about the 25th day of 
the same month, and continued from that time forward, 
for various periods, to perform the duties of their offices 
during the rebellion. These persons claim that by the 
the fact that the ordinance of secession was adopted by 
the Secession Convention of Georgia on the 19th day of 
the same month, a date which occurred a few days after 
their election and a tew days before they were commis- 
sioned, they were shielded from the effect of the dis- 
qualifying clauses of the Act of Dec. 22d. 

The claim thus set up was regarded favorably by the 
Commander of the District, in deference to the opinion 
of the Honorable Attorney General of the United States, 
and these thirteen members were permitted to retain 
their seats in the Lecjislature. 

It will be observed, therefore, that the greatest liber- 
ality has been exercised in construing the act of Decem- 
ber 22, so as not to affect unfavorably any person who 
might, by any possibility, be deemed eligible. 

Mr. Caldwell attempts to cast a reflection or doubt 
upon the republicanism of the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives by saying : 



'*It was Speaker McWhorter's rulings which led to 
the expulsion of the colored members," &c. 



8 
The rulings to which Mr. Caldwell refers were — 

"That no member, whose eligibility had been ques- 
tioned by the committee, and which question was invol- 
ved in the report, was entitled to vote therein." 

And on page 40 of the Journal of the House of Rep- 
resentatives of the old organization, we find that when 
the question of the eligibility of certain white members 
was under consideration, Mr. Bryant, of Richmond 
County, raised the point of order that — 

"No member whose eligibility had been questioned by 
the committee, and which question was involved in the 
report, was entitled to vote thereon." 

The Speaker made this ruling, and decided that they 
were not entitled to vote. Mr. Crawford, (Dem.) of 
Barton County, appealed from the decision of the 
Speaker, upon which appeal the yeas and nays were 
required to be recorded, and resulted in yeas 84, nays 
74. Among those who voted to sustain the Speaker in 
this ruling we find the name of Mr. Caldwell. 

When the report of the committee upon privileges and 
elections, declaring colored men not eligible to hold 
offices or seats in the Legislature, was made, we find 
upon page 224 of the Journal of the House, old organi- 
zation, that Mr. Scott, Democrat, of Floyd, made the 
point of order — 

"That upon the decision of the question now under 
consideration, the persons whose seats are contested and 
herein involved are not allowed to vote. Mr. Price, the 
Speaker ^ro teni.^ being in the chair, decided the point 
well taken. Mr. Bryant appealed from the decision of 
the chair, upon which appeal the yeas and nays were 
required, and. resulted in yeas 90, nays 19." 



9 

Amonii those who voted in the affirmative — voted to 
sustain the ruling, not of the Speaker proper, Mr. 
McWhorter, but of the Speaker pro tempore. Mr. Price, a 
Democrat then in the cliair, v^all be found the name of 
Mr. Caldwell ! 1 ! Upon the final vole, by which the 
colored men were excluded, Mr. Caldwell was absent \ 
but a few days after the expulsion had been accom- 
plished, he sought and obtained permission to have his 
vote recorded in the negative. It is painful to thus de- 
stroy Mr. Caldwell's consistency by referring to his 
political record, but the trutli of history demands it. ' 

The general sentiment of the community at that time 
— the great Democratic convention at New York haying 
by its resolutions declared the reconstruction acts to be 
revolutionary, unconstitutional, and void, and intimated 
that the governments established under those acts should 
be dissipated — the threatening letters received by repub- 
lican members from their respective homes, together with 
the well-known impossibility of preventing, by their votes, 
they being largel}' in the minority, the expulsion of the 
colored members, will account for the small Republican 
vote which is found in opposition to the revolutionary 
action of the rebel majority in the organization. 

From the foregoing I think your honorable committee 
will agree with me that the statements of Mr. Caldwell 
that the Lower House of the Legislature was a Repub- 
lican bod}^ after the admission to it of all the men 
declared by General Meade^s order to have been elected, 
irrespective of their eligibility under the law, is effect- 
ually disposed of, and that some light has been thrown 
upon the consistency of the honorable gentleman's politi- 
cal record. 

Mr. Caldwell further proceeds to refer to a very im- 
portant branch of this question by saying : 



10 

"' Your attention has been directed to the leading idea 
of the Governor's report, viz : that the purpose of the late 
act of Congress was to set aside the first organi'^.ation of 
the Legislature as illegal, and render all its acts void, 
and especially the validity of election of United States 
Senators and State officers. This construction of the 
meaning ot the act grounds itself upon the idea that the 
number of ineligible persons supposed to be in the body 
vitiated the whole body and all its acts." 

This allegation is not supported by anything presented 
by Mr. Caldwell, nor is it supported by any fact whatever. 
The purpose of the late act of Congress I conceive to 
have been just exactly what is announced in its title, 
namely, /c» ■promote the rccojistruction of the State of 
Georgia. 

After thus giving a false statement of my construction 
of the act, he adds : 

" This construction of the meaning of the act grounds' 
itself upon the idea that the number of ineligible persons 
supposed to be in the body vitiated the whole body and 
all its acts ;" 

And then proceeds to argue that, if any number less 
than a majority were disqualified members, the body — a 
qualified majority being a quorum — were competent to 
act, &c. The argument of Mr. Caldwell on this point 
is a ver}- weak imitation of the very able and compre- 
hensive minority report made by your Honorable Chair- 
man on the same subject, January 25th, 1869. 

On the 25th of January, 1869, your honorable com- 
mittee made a report to the Senate, [40th Congress, ^^d. 
session, report of committee 192, on the credentials of 
Joshua Hill, claiming to be a Senator elect from Georgia.} 

In that report your honorable committee arrived at the 
conclusion that the right of Mr. Hill, if regularly elected. 



u 

to a seat in the Senate depended upon three important 
considerations : 

"First. Did the Legislature of Georgia, regularly organ- 
ized in accordance with the Constitution of the United 
States, the laws of Congress, and the Constitution of 
Georgia, duly ratify the fourteenth amendment, and com- 
ply with the various conditions imposed by the act of 
June 25, 1868. 

Second. Had the Legislature and people of Georo-ia, 
subsequent to such compliance with said act of Congress, 
committed such acts of usurpation and outrage as to 
place the State in a condition unfit to be represented in 
Congress? 

Third. Whether on the w^hole case, taking the action 
of Georgia, both before and since the pretended ratifica- 
tion of the fourteenth amendment, a civil government 
has been established in that State which Congress ought 
to recognize." 

After reciting the result of a thorough and careful in- 
vestigation, your honorable committee concludes as fol- 
lows : 

"Wherefore your committee feel called upon to recom- 
mend that Mr. Hill be not allowed to take a seat in the 
Senate for the reason that Georgia ts not cntilkd to re;p- 
resentatlon in Congress.'''' 

In another part of the same report your honorable 
committee disposes of the point now revived by Mr. 
Caldwell by saying : 

" For the purposes of this report, however, your com- 
mittee did not deem it necessary to ascertain the number 
of disqualified persons admitted, but the fact that atiy 
were knowingly admitted was not only a violation of the 
fourteenth amendment and a failure to comply with the 
requirements of Congress, but manifests a disposition to 



12 

disobey and defy the autliority of the United States. If 
one can be admitted, why not all? And will it be con- 
tended that if the entire body had been composed of men 
who had usurped the functions of the Legislature against 
the express provisions of the reconstruction acts, they 
could have complied with the provisions of those acts so 
as to create any obligation on the part of Congress to 
receive their Senators and Representatives? Your com- 
mittee are of opinion that the act of June 25, 1868, which 
required that the constitutional amendment should be 
duly ratified must be held to mean that it must be ratified 
by a Legislature which has m good f;iith substantially 
complied with all the requirements of law providing for 
its organization." 

Mr. Hill was, therefore, refused his seat, notwith- 
standing the very able and comprehensive minority 
report, made at the same time by 3'our honorable Chair- 
man, to the effect that, even admitting a number of mem- 
bers to have been disqualified, there was not a sufficient 
number of that character to render invalid the proceed- 
ings of the body, and that, if the Legislature was prop- 
erly organized when it elected Mr. Hill, the fact that it 
subsequently became disorganized ought not to effect 
his election. The opinion of the majority of your hon- 
orable committee, however, seems to have been sus- 
tained by the action of both Houses of Congress, and by 
the President in the passage and approval of the act of 
December 22, to promote the reconstruction of the State 
of Georgia. That act provides for the reassembling of 
the persons declared to have been elected by General 
Meade, to wit : the same persons who assembled and 
made the organization which was inquired into by your 
honorable committee in January, 1S69, and that the reor- 
ganization shall be effected by the exclusion from its mem- 
bership of all persons who held office under the United 



States or a State Government and thereat"ter participated 
in the rebellion, or held office under a government 
organized in rebellion, &c. It provided, also, that the 
persons who wevti qualified under this act should proceed 
to reorganize the I^egidaitire by the election of its oncers. 
Does not this determine in ihe most positive manner that 
in the opinion of Congress, and of the President, the old 
organization was not only not competent to " duly ratify 
the Fourteenth Amendment," but was not competent to 
elect its own officers? and that neither Congress or the 
President was bound to recognize its political acts as 
entitling the State to representation? And it is a very 
natural conclusion that if the old organization was not 
considered by Congress to have duly ratified the Four- 
teenth Amendment in such a wav as to bind Concrress to 
recognize such ratification, and had not elected its own 
officers, // could not have duly elected United States 
Senators. 

There is no half-way ground in this matter. Either 
the government of Georgia is " Provisional" to-da^s or 
the action of Congress in passing the act of December 22, 
1869, and the President's assignment of General Terry 
to duty as District Commander under the reconstruction 
laws, cannot be defended. The act of December 22, 
1869, by assuming that the Legislature had never been 
legally organized ipso facto, placed the State under the 
reconstruction laws. Such is the inevitable logic of the 
requirement that there shall be a nezu organization, and 
such 7nust be the interpretation to justify the President's 
orders [o General Terrjs and to render lawful General 
Terry's acts under those orders in interfering to preserve 
life and property, arresting and confining assassins, 
house-burners, negro-whippers, &c., and in removing 
sheriffs who refused to do their duty, and in appointing 



14 

others in their stead. It' the Legislature was ever hivv- 
fulh' organized, thougli Congress might undertake to 
purge it, or to reseat persons it had improperly ex- 
pelled, it would not undertake to order its reorganiza- 
tion. 

There is but one way out of the inextricable con- 
fusion and illegality into which this effort to sustain the 
election of Senators by the old organization willlead, 
and that is to give the act of Dec. 22d, 1869. the full 
scope and meaning that was given to it by the President 
in his order assigning General Terry to the command of 
the " district" of Georgia — to wit: as a declaration that 
Georgia was still subject to the reconstruction laws ; still 
without any *' legal State government" competent to 
take part in, or to be recognized by, the Government of 
the United States as a State government dc jure. 

Nor does the fact that the Executive Department and 
the House of Representatives have each indirectly recog- 
nized the government of Georgia as a '• Legal State 
Government," and therefore entitled to be represented in 
Congress, at all militate against this view. 

The point on which the Congressional scheme of recon- 
struction turns seems to be this. Ex-President Johnson 
contended that when the Executive had recognized a State 
Government as a legal State Government, there was 
nothing to be done to complete the process of reconstruc- 
tion but for each House, under its power " to judge of 
the election and qualification of its members" to proceed 
independently, and decide upon the admission of the 
members of the several Houses. And in an elaborate 
message he communicated these views to Congress. 

That body forthwith by a joint resolution repudiated 
this doctrine, and declared that none of the late Rebel 



15 

States should be entitled to representation until Congresj 
so declared by law. 

If the House of Representatives of the 40th Congress, 
under a mistaken belief, caused by false representations 
that the Legislature had in good faith purged itself of 
ineligible members, admitted to their seats the Georgia 
Representatives without any declaration '' by law" having 
been made that the State zuas entided to representation, 
it was a simple act of one House, and not in accord, 
with the joint resolution in which the fundamental doc- 
trine of reconstruction was declared. Each House is 
the judge of the election and qualification of its o.vn 
members, but neither House of Congress can by itself 
conclusively decide when one of the late rebel States is 
entitled to be represented in Congress. 

So soon as the facts of the Georgia matter were made 
known and understood — so soon as it was made appar- 
ent that the Legislature of Georgia had not been legally 
organized — Congress, both Houses concurring, adopted 
the act of 22d December, 1869, requiring the Legislature 
to be reorganized. And this v/as done with great unan- 
imity, notwithstanding the previous acdon of the House 
of Representatives, which action by the House, as we 
have said, was induced by the political fraud perpetra- 
ted by men whose character and intentions were not sus- 
pected, until their expulsion of the negroes had directed 
inquiry into the manner of the organization of the 
Legislature, to ascertain how it was possible lor such 
action to occur, if men who were disqualified under the 
reconstruction laws had been excluded. Then it was 
that the facts were ascertained which led to the report of 
your honorable committee in January, and the action of 
Congress and tlie President, in December, 1869. 



16 

It is therefore clear that under the act of December 22, 
1869, and under the orders of the President bv virtue of 
that act, and under the proceedings of General Terrv 
under those orders, that Georgia was not entitled to 
representation in Congress, and the Legislature of 1868 
was no more competent to elect Senators, and organize a 
State government de jure than was the Legislature of 
1865-66. In those years, under the supervision of Presi- 
dent Johnson, Mr. Jenkins was inaugurated as Gov- 
ernor of the State. The Legislature was organized and 
had two protracted sessions, and the military jurisdiction 
of the United States was withdrawn. Two Senators 
were elected ; the Thirteenth xA.mendment to the Consti- 
tution was ratified, and from January, 1865, to March, 
1867, for all local purposes, and for such national purposes 
as the President could control, a State government was in 
operation. Yet Congress, by the act of March 2, 1867, 
declared that there was no legal State government in ex- 
istence in the State, repudiated the election of Senators, 
and under its power to guarantee each State a republican 
government, adopted the Congressional scheme of recon- 
struction. 

In close analogy to ihis. Congress, the law-making 
power, treating as inconclusive the action of General 
Meade, as well as the action of the House of Represen- 
tatives of the Fortieth Congress, passed the act of De- 
cember 22, 1869, and this was supplemented by the neces- 
sary action of the President. 

The local legislation of the body in 1865-1866, has 
always been recognized as valid until repealed, as well 
as the ordinary legislation of the body assembled in 
1868-1869. This point, however is treated in full in the 
appendix to which reference is made. 

Such is the inevitable logic of what has been done, 



17 

and this inevitable logic must be answered, before a Leg- 
islature which, by act of Congress, has been declared 
incompetent to elect its own officers can be held compe- 
tent to have ratified amendments to the Constitution and 
elected Senators to the Congress of the United States. 

It does not follow, however, that the ordinary local 
legislation of that body is not valid as acts de facto until 
repealed by a legally organized body. In order to 
defeat, if possible, the full effect of the action of Con- 
gress in upsetting rebel machinations, the suggestion has 
been rigorously made that State bonds were to be repu- 
diated, contracts violated, laws ignored, etc. But this is 
mere bosh. The only State bonds of Georgia which 
have been sold since the war, were issued under the 
authority of the Legislature of 1865. Upon this point I 
invite your attention to my communication to the Legis- 
lature of February 16 last, herewith transmitted in the 
Appendix "A." 

Objection has heretofore been made by gentlemen who 
sought the attention of your Honorable Committee, to 
the fact that persons who were qualified were awarded 
the seats claimed by men who were disqualified. This 
action was taken by the body itself after it had reorgan- 
ized, by the election of its presiding officer, and by a vote 
which would not have been changed had the three persons 
who were by General Terry decided to be disqualified, been 
permitted to participate in the proceedings. Hence if the 
organization had been lawfully perfected by the election 
of its presiding officer, the admission of these persons 
was the act of that lawful body. My own opinion is that 
it was in the power of the General commanding the Dis- 
trict of Georgia under the reconstruction acts to have 
enforced such action. Your attention is invited to my 
views upon this point, as embodied in my correspondence 



18 

with the Major General commanding the District of 
Georgia, a copy of which is printed in the appendix 
marked "B." 

I also invite your attention to the views and conclusions 
of General Terry upon this subject, printed in appendix 
marked "C." My impression and understanding is that 
the majority of the House based their action in this matter 
upon the same ground taken by General Terry, and for 
the reasons therein set forth. 

We should keep in view the fact that at the election,, 
when these persons who are disqualified were candi- 
dates, the publicly-proclaimed object of the party 
with which they acted was to defeat the reconstruc- 
tion policy by voting down the new constitution. Tc 
do this the more effectually by bringing out their 
voters, the Democratic party nominated candidates for 
every office provided for in the new constitution. Of 
course, il their primal object — the defeat of the new con- 
stitution — was accomplished, there would be no offices 
for their candidates to fill ; hence they were selected for 
their popularity on their war record, without regard to 
their eligibility under the law, although all parties had 
been put on notice by a general order from General 
Mead of what the law fixed as disqualification. 

My opponent was the gallant Lieutenant General 
Gordon, who won his fame in the Confederate ranks at 
Gettysburg ; and so throughout the State candidates were 
nominated not because they were qualified to hold office 
under the law ; not because their party expected or de- 
sired them to hold office under the reconstruction consti- 
tution, but simply and solely to bring out votes by their 
rebel record against the constitution. And I respectfully 
submit that the strict application of the law and the par- 



19 

liamentary rule in these cases becomes marked retribu- 
tive justice. 

Mr. Caldwell, however, in his last paper before your 
honorable committee, says : 

"We care but little for the irregularities of the present 
organization, and are willing for it to stand if Governor 
Bullock may not be allowed to carry out his ruinous 
designs. If you shall suffer everything that preceded 
the act to promote reconstruction to be ripped up and the 
official terms to be extended as the Governor proposes, it 
will throw us into inextricable confusion, and perhaps 
involve us in financial ruin. If you recognize the valid- 
ity of the Legislature prior to the expulsion of the colored 
members, let all the acts of the body up to that time 
stand, admit the present Senators elect, and confine the 
official terms within the limits prescribed by the ordi- 
nance of the convention and the constitution, we are con- 
tent," etc., etc. 

It has never been proposed to extend any officer's 
official term, although there are plenty of men in office 
in Georgia to-day, who have '■'■ extended their term'^ since 
the time when JefT Davis was elected President of C. S. A. 

All that I have said upon that subject is that when the 
organization of the Legislature shall have been accepted 
by Congress, and the State shall have been admitted to 
representation and thereby become a State in the Union, 
that then the members of the Legislature will enter as 
members dejure upon the constitutional term for which 
they were elected. 

The convention which framed the constitution, adopted 
an ordinance to provide for the election of civil officers 
at the same time of voting for or against the constitu- 
tion, which, in its preamble, says : 

" Whereas^ All civil offices of the State are only provis- 



20 

ional until this State is represented in Congress ; and 
whereas^ the interests of Georgia require that all civil 
offices should be filled by loyal citizens, according to the 
provisions of the constitution being framed by this Con- 
vention at the earliest practicable moment and for the 
purpose of avoiding any unnecessary delay or loss of 
time and useless expense to the State," etc. 

It was thus clearly provided that the persons elected at 
the time of the ratification of the constitution should simply 
be -provisional officers until the State was admitted. 
When that event took place, they then became the offi- 
cers of the State government in fact — the constitution 
which had been ratified by the people became of force 
by the recognition of the State by Congress, and the 
regular terms of office would then be decided and restric- 
ted by that constitu-ion. 

Certainly no loyal man — no man who has the welfare 
and safet}^ of the government established under the nevv 
constitution in Georgia at heart can ask or wish to 
deprive his friends of the opportunity of carrying out, in 
good faith and effiictively, the provisions of that consti- 
tution, the securing of equal justice and equal rights 
before the law for all of our citizens, the opportunity to 
vote undisturbed by the intimidations of Ku Klux assas- 
sins, and the establishment of free schools, as provided 
in that instrument. 

It is quite reasonable that Mr. Caldwell should sa}'-, 
speaking for himself and the party opposing the recon- 
struction policy, whom he now represents : 

"We care but little lor the irregularities of the pres- 
ent organization. If you recognize the validity of the 
Legislature prior to the expulsion of the colored mem- 
bers, admit the Senators elect," etc., etc. 



21 

For little do they care for anything, either regular or 
irregular, if the seating of Messrs. Hill and Miller can 
only be accomplished, and their friends be permitted to go 
through the farce of an election similar to the reign of 
anarchy and terror which is politely termed, '■'■carrying 
the State for Seymour and Blair. '^ 

What loyal men ask and expect at the hands of Con- 
gress is that the high position which Congress has taken 
in putting down the usurpations of the Georgia rebels 
shall be maintained, and that now when an organization 
has been perfected in accordance with the late act to 
promote the reconstruction of Georgia, whereby the 
Legislative power rests in the hands of the friends of 
the new system of government, they shall be per- 
mitted to carry out the measures which the people 
adopted in voting for the Constitution ; and thus, by 
their own legislation, provide means for their protec- 
tion, so that when the regular legal time for the 
election shall have arrived, it may be a free and fair ex- 
pression of political preference on the part of the voter, 
whether he be poor, ignorant and black, or rich, arro- 
gant and white. Whether he be Republican or Demo- 
crat, Radical or Ku-Klux. 

It seems to serve the purpose of these people who are 
endeavoring to prevent the state of facts to which I have 
just referred, to allege that I have " designs" which are 
"ruinous" to the State, and that all sorts of fearful 
calamities will inevitably befall the State if a Republican 
Legislature is not checked and dispersed with as little 
delay as possible. But where can be found a safe foun- 
dation whereon to rest a belief that a legislature composed 
of men, a majority of whom have risked their lives and 
their property in their efforts to carry out the Congres- 
sional policy of reconstruction and establish a state gov- 



22 

ernment founded upon the consent of all the governed 
without regard to race or color, will fail to carefully guard 
and protect their own interests and the interests of the peo- 
ple they represent by promptly bringing up for investigation 
and, if found guilty, to punishment, any officer of that 
government who fails or neglects to perform his duty, or 
wilfully violates the laws by which he is to be controlled? 
Are the friends of the new constitution less likely to 
guard it and punish violations under it, than its oppon- 
ents and its enemies? 

The Republicans endured the government established 
by President •Johnson in Georgia for nearly two years 
beyond the term for which that government was elected, 
and made little, if any complaints; and now why should 
the Democrats of Georgia, through their mouth-pieces 
here, make such a terrible outcry against a Legislature 
with a Republican majority which does not propose to 
extend its term, but simply to hold the term for which 
it was elected? Why should these Democrats plead 
that the time occupied with their revolutionary proceed- 
ings, during which the government of the State was 
provisional, should be now counted against the term of 
the lawfully organized body ? 

The answer is found in their fear of losing their power 
and control, and their opportunity to longer obstruct the 
establishment of a loyal Republican government in 
Georgia. 

So far as I am personally concerned, it is well-known 
to my personal friends and to my business acquaintances 
that I retain the office I now hold at great pecuniary 
Sicrifice to myself, and there is certainly little comfort in 
being the target of either Billingsgate or bullets. But 
as I have heretofore assured the President and Gen- 



eral Terry, I now assure you that my resignation is at 
their service. My only ambition is to firmly establish a 
Republican government in Georgia, and if that can be 
promoted in the least degree by my retirement, it w^ill be 
a pleasure for me to yield the office. Rebel faultfinding 
and abuse, how^ever, w^ill never accomplish that result. 

I am unwilling to believe, and the men who have 
risked their lives, their property, and their good name in 
sustaining the great principles of republican liberty in 
Georgia, are unwilling to believe that this honorable com- 
mittee will listen to or be controlled by the pleas presented 
here by the enemies of good government and the enemies 
of our domestic peace, even though they be presented, as 
they now are, by representatives who have heretofore 
acted with your friends, and therefore, now hope the 
more eflfectually to forward the purposes of their new 
found allies. 

We believe that your action will be in harmony with 
these great principles, and of a character to sustain the 
party which has upheld them. With such action, the 
friends of good order and good government in Georgia 
will soon disclose their ability to maintain themselves. 

If, however, such action should be taken as will 
stimulate and encourage a renewal of the active hostility 
to the Government and its friends which has now, since 
the late action of Congress, in a great measure subsided, 
we shall hope that, upon a more thorough investigation 
and full consideration of the great issues involved, the 
American Congress, which has never yet failed gal- 
lantly and consistently to uphold the right in the great 
struggle which is now nearly closing, and to uphold that 
right, too, even when the most insidious attempts, under 
guises the most deceitful, have been made against it, will 



24 

render its verdict in favor of loyalty and justice, and 
against treason and treachery. 

Until that verdict is rendered we shall labor for the 
right, and with that verdict we shall be content. 

RUFUS B. BULLOCK. 



There are some references of a personal character that 
I take the liberty of presenting to your honorable com- 
mittee in an appendix, and to which your leisurely at- 
tention is respectfully invited. 



25 



APPENDIX A. 



MESSAGE. 

Atlanta, Ga., February 16, 1870. 
To the Senate and House of Bepre^entatives 

of the Provisional Legislature: 

Some misapprehension having arisen as to the effect of tlie Act 
of Congi-ess of December 22, 1869, npon the ordinary legislative 
acts of tlie Legislatures of 1868-'69, I deem it projier to say that, 
in my judgment, the Act of Congress referred to does not render 
invaiid any of the ordinary laws i)assed by those bodies. 

The Reconstruction Acts of March 3, 1867, and July 19, 1867, in 
exi)ress terms declared that ''no legal State governments" existed 
in the States therein named ; yet the Ordinances of the Conven- 
tion of 1865, and the Acts of the Legislatures of 1865 and 1866, 
have been uniformly, by the military authorities and by our own 
Courts, held legal and binding. The " Scaling ordinaiice" of the 
Convention of 1865, "the Evidence law" of 1866, both Acts of 
immense importance, were, during the whole admini^^trations of 
General Pope and General Meade, enforced by the Courts as valid 
and binding laws ; yet these Acts were passed l)y bodies which 
Congress declared to be Legislatures of no "legal State gov- 
ernments." 

General Pope and General Meade were put in command in this 
State to enforce " the laws. " The Courts of Georgia sitting under 
the administration of the military authorities of the United States, 
never for a moment seem to have thought that the Acts of the 
Legislatures of 1865 and 1866 were not laws, and yet Congress had 
in express terms declared that "no legal State government existed 
in the State." 

It would seem from this action that the declaration of Congress 
"that no legal State governments exist in the late rebel States," 
must be understood in a qualified sense, to wit : no legal State, 
competent to take part in the Government of the Union, and 
proper to be recognized as State governments under the Constitu- 
tion of the United States. 

It was not the intent of Congress, by any of its reconstruction 
legislation, to render invalid any of the laws passed by the Legis- 
latures it subsequently declared' illegal, except so far as those laws 
were obnoxious to the Constitution and laws of the United States. 

It is true, it has not been the policy to permit legislative assem- 
blies, as sucli, to convene and legislate, except for specific purposes 
«duriug the military regime ; but the whole practice of the Govern' 
D 



26- 

ment has been to recognize as valid, laws actually passed and not 
repndiated by the United States. 

The simple fact that from March, 1867, to July, 1868, the Courts 
of this State, during the administrations of Generals Pope and 
Meade, and l)efore the C'onvention of 1868 had ratified those hiM^s, 
administered without question the Ordinances of the Convention 
of 1865, and the acts of the Legislatures of 1865 and 1866, is a 
judicial determination of tlie highest tribunals known to our law,, 
that the ordinary laws of said bodies were valid and binding as the 
acts of a Legislature de facto^ however illegal the bodies might 
themselves have been as "•State Legislatures," in view of the 
reconstruction acts. 

During the existence of the military supervision, meeting of 
legislative bodies, except for specific purposes, have Iteen deemed 
incompatible with tlie actual state of affairs ; but in all the States, 
laws passed by bodies meeting as such, when the military power 
was in fact withdrawn, have been uniformly recognized and acted 
upon as valid and biuding. 

It is, therefore, I tliink, a])parent, from the uniform action of 
the courts, and of the United States authorities, that the laws of 
tlie Legislature of 1868 and 1869, and its acts which were not of a 
political cliaracter, are perfectly valid, notwithstanding the LTnited 
States, by the act of December 22, 1869, has, in effect, declared 
that "no legal State Government existed in this State" at that 
time. And tluit the impression which is sought to be created that 
contracts are invalidated, that State bonds are repudiated, and 
that corporations, oi'ganized upon the basis of the late legislation, 
are without legal foundation, is entirely groundless. Such im- 
pression is only created for the purpose of misleading the public 
mind, and defeating the full effect and true intent and purpose of 
the Reconstruction Acts. Argument upon this point seems to be 
superfluous, added to the material fact that our bonds are saleable 
at a higher rate than those of any other Southern State; and that 
the bonds of railroads which have been endorsed under the author- 
ity of the legislation of 1868, are selling at their full value. 

It lias been suggested to me from various quarters, tliat it would 
be wise for your body to take some action for the temporary relief 
of the people from the present pressure for the payment of the war 
debts contracted before 1865; now made doubly burdensome by the- 
late decision of tlie Supreme Court of the United States, that those 
contracted before 1862 are payable in gold. 

As, however, in my judgment, until your action to complete tlie 
reconstruction ®f the State is accepted "by Congress, it is not proper 
for you to undertake general legislation,' I would respectfully sug- 
gest that you adopt some resolution expressive of the wishes of the 
General Assembly on this subject, with the liope that the General 
commanding may, by his order, cause the same to be enforced. 

When the last step in the reconstruction work shall have been 
taken by the declaration of the result of the Senatorial election, I 
would respectfully recommend that a recess be taken for such a 
time as may to you seem best, pending the action of Congress for 
our admission. 

RUrUS B. BULLOCK, 

Provisional Governor, 



•n 



APPENDIX B. 



Atlanta, Ga., January 19, 1870. 
Genekal: Inclosed I hand j^ou tlie apjilication of William Guil- 
ford, colored, to be awarded tlie seat of J. C. Drake, a disqnalilied 
man, who received the highest number of votes in IJpson county. 
Had the election been held under civil State autliority, and were 
the legislative organization subject to civil jiuisdiction, I should 
most certainly issue the certificate to Guilford. 

This is a sample case, similar to a number of others, and if de- 
cided in the affirmative will insure justice to the colored race 
through a loyal Legislature. 

I respectfully invite your attention to the inclosed argument iu 
favor of such a course. 
1 am, general, very respectfullv, your obedient servant, 

EUFU8 B. BULLOCK, 

Provisional Oovernor. 
Major General Terry, 

Commanding District of Georgia. 



Atlanta, Jaminry 17, 1870. 
Georgia, Fulton Countg: 

The petition of William Guilford, (colored,) of the county of 
Upson and State aforesaid, respectfully showeth unto your Excel- 
lency that, under and by virtue of General Orders Nos. 39 and 40, 
issued by General Meade, dated, respectively, Atlanta, Georgia, 
March 14 and 15, 1868, an election was held in the county of Up- 
son, beginning on the 20th day of x\pril, 186S, and continuing four 
days, for Governor, members of Congress, members of the Gen- 
eral Assembly, and other officers of this State; that, at said elec- 
tion, J. C. Drake and your petitioner were candidates, in said 
county of Upson, for a seat in the House of Kepresentatives of 
this State; that at the time when the said election was held the 
said Drake was disqualified from holding office under the acts of 
Congress, (see act to admit the State of ]^orth Carolina, * * 
Georgia, * * June 2-5, 1868,) and that your petitioner was qual- 
ified; that, ou the 2oth day of June, Major General Meade issued 
General Orders Xo. 90. Headquarters Third Military District, an- 
nouncing ''that from the returns made by the boards of registra- 
tion of the election lield as aforesaid * * it appears that * * 
J. C. Drake, of Upson county, * ■• was elected Representative 
in the General Assembly;" that the said General Meade failed 
and the General Assembly refused to liear the ap]»lication of your 
petitioner, showing that the said Drake being disqualified, your 



28 

petitioner was, under the hvAvs tlien and now of force, tlie legally 
elected Representative, and should have been awarded tlie seat. 

Your petitioner further slioweth unto your excellency that, un- 
der the recent act of Congress dated December 22, 1869, entitled 
"An act to i)romote the reconstruction of the State of Georgia," 
tlie second section of the said act reqiiires one of the two oaths to 
be taken by the person claiming a seat in either branch of the gen- 
eral assembly. Said section concludes as follows : "And every 
person claiming to be so elected, who shall refuse or decline, or 
neglect, or be unable to take one of said oaths or affirmations 
above provided, shall not be admitted to a seat in said senate or 
house of representatives, or to a participation in the proceedings 
thereof, but shall be ineligible to such seat." 

Your petitioner further showeth that said Drake has refused, 
declined, and neglected to take the oath required by act of Con- 
gress above mentioned, hence is ineligible to a seat in the house of 
representatives in this State. 

Your petitioner further showeth that, under an ordinance of 
the late constitutional convention of this State, as appears on 
page 387 of the journal of said convention, as well as by the pro- 
visions of the present constitution of this State, and said recent 
act of Congi-ess, he is qualified to hold a seat in said house of rep- 
resentatives. 

Your petitioner further showetli that, under the fourteenth ar- 
ticle of the Constitution of tlie United States, said Drake cannot 
hold a seat in the general assembly of this State, Avhich has been 
demonstrated by his refusal to qualify as required by recent act of 
Congress; which enforces said fourteenth article. 

Your ])etitioner further showeth that, under the law of this 
State, as appears in section 121, Irwin's code, it is provided that, 
if at any poi)ular election to All any office, tlie person elected is 
constitutionally ineligible, the person having the next highest 
number of votes, who is eligible, whenever a plurality elects, 
shall be declared elected and be qualified and commissioned to such 
office. 

Your petitioner further showeth that he did, at said election in 
said county of Upson, receive the next highest number of votes 
to said Drake ; and under and by virtue of the law above cited, is 
entitled to a seat in the house of representatives of this State, 
after having filed with the secretary of State tlie oath required by 
said recent act of Congress, and respectfully asks your excellency 
to allow him to qualify and take his seat as a member of the house 
of representatives of this State. 
Respectfully, 

WILLIAM GUILFORD. 

His excellency Rurus B. Bullock, 

Provisional Governor of the State of Georgia. 



In the enforcement of the act of December 22, ISGO, two (jues- 
tions have presented themselves: 
1st. Who is the final judge of eligibility of a member of the leg- 



29 

islature; the member himself, the house to wliich he claims to be 
elected, or the general commandingV 

2d. If any are found ineligible, is^ it proper that the commanding 
general direct the next liighest person voted for to take his place, 
and participate in the reorganization, or if this is to be left to the 
houses after they are organized? 
On these questions the folloAving observations are submitted: 
When at tiie cessation of armed'resistance by the rebels, in May, 
1865, the several States lately in rebellion were found, under the 
Constitution of tiie United States, to be absolutely witliout legal 
civil government, undoubtedly it devolved upon the United States, 
in the then status in fact of affairs, and under article 4, section 4, 
of the federal Constitution, to see to it that legal civil government 
should be re-established. 

It would seem to follow as a necessary incident to this power 
that the United States should protect life and property until the 
organization was effected, provide a mode and method of organi- 
zation, and superintend, by such means as should appear wise and 
proper, the process of organization. 

In pursuance of this power. Congress, on the 2d of March, 1867, 
passed the original "■ reconstruction act,'' declaring that no legal 
civil government existed in certain States, (including the State of 
Georgia,) and conferring the whole government of the same upon 
the several commanders of the district therein provided for, but 
authorizing them to make use, in their discretion, of any civil or- 
ganization they might find in existence. (Sections 1 — 3.) 

This bill also provided that until the people of said States should 
be admitted to representation, any civil governments which may 
exist therein shall be deemed ]Trovisional only, and be subject to 
the paramount authority of the LTnited' States. (Section 6.) 

It was also provided tluit this act should be inoperative when- 
ever the people of said States, after the performance of certain 
conditions, should be admitted to representation in Congress. 
(Section 5.) 

The preamble to said act recites its objects to be to preserve 
order until legal State governments should be legally established. 
Very clearly under this act the w^hole effective power of preserv- 
ing order and superintending the process of organization, is con- 
ferred upon the general commanding the several districts pro- 
vided for. 

The supplemental act of March £3, 1867, is still more emphatic 
upon this point. The commandiiig general is therein authorized 
to appoint registers, and generally clothed with the chief superin- 
tendence of the process of organization. 

The additional supplemental act of July 19, 1867, is more em- 
phatic still, declaring in express language that the said '• govern- 
ments," if continued, were to be subject in all respects to the mil- 
itary commanders. 

The commanders are declared not to be bound in their construc- 
tion of the law by the opinion of any civil officers of the United 
States. 

It is also enacted that the several acts are to l)e construed liber- 
ally to the ends that the intents thereof may be fully and perfectly 
carried out, which intents, by the preamble to the original act. 



30 

are declared to be the establishment of loyal republican State 
governments. 

In pursuance of these acts, the military commanders have uni- 
formly exercised, at their discretion, such powers of civil govern- 
ment and such powers of superintendence over the process of 
organization as in their judgment was best calculated to effect the 
object sought by Congress, to wit, the organization of loyal State 
governments in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the 
United States. 

To this end they have removed officers, suspended laws, given 
authoritative interpretation to laws, and generally acted as su- 
l)remearl)iters of every question which presented itself , not clearly 
])rovided for by act of Congress. 

General Grant, in his report as Secretary of War, November, 

1867, declares that the powers of these commanders are civil as 
well as military, and that in their civil capacity they are inde- 
pendent of eve'n the General of the Army and Secretary of War, 
and commends them in the following terms: 

" It is ].*ut fair to the district commanders, however, to state 
that while they have been thus independent in their civil duties, 
there has not been one of them wlio would not yield to a positively 
expressed wish in regard to any matter of civil administration 
from eitlier of tlie officers placed over them l)y the Constitution or 
acts of Congress, so long as that wish was in the direction of a 
proper execution of the law, for the execution of wliich they are 
alone ]-esponsible." (McPherson's Manual, 18G8, p. 314.) 

It would appear, therefore, to be incontestable, that by the ex- 
press language of the reconstruction acts, hj tlie practice of the 
generals conim'anding tlie various districts, and by the opinions of 
the General of tlie Army and the Secretary of War, that the full 
superintendence of the process of reconstruction, and the au- 
thoritative interpretation of the law in all doubtful questions, is 
in the military commanders of the several "military districts," 
provided for by the act of March 2, 1867, and unless there be some- 
thing in the peculiar status of Georgia, or in the acts of June 25, 

1868, and December 22, 1869, modifying this power, under the cir- 
cumstances the right of the Commanding General to " investi- 
gate " the eligibility of the claimants to seats is unquestionable. 

The act of June 25, 1868, recognizing the "Constitution " as 
rejinblicau and fixing the terms in which the State should be ad- 
mitted to representation, clearly contemplates (section 2) tliat the 
liegislatures shall be convened by the Governor elect, and not by 
the General Commanding; and this, too, is clearly the intent of 
the act of December 22, 1869, and in this particular the powers of 
the General Commanding are by both of these acts transferred to 
the Governor. 

But in neither of these acts is there any special provision as to 
the mode and manner in which the Legislature shall organize. 

In July, 1868, the several Houses w^e're separately convened, the 
members qualified, and the organization effected under the direc- 
tion of the Provisional Governor, with the concurrence and advice 
of General Meade, no reference at all l)eing liad in the organiza- 
tion to the eligibility of tlie members under the act of June 25, 1868. 

When the organization was nominally complete, the two Houses 



31 

notified the fact to the Provisional Governor, who, on the same 
day notified the same to General Meade, with the suggestion that 
various persons had been permitted to participate who were dis- 
qualified. 

To this General Meade replied, in substance, that in his judg- 
ment neither House was organized until all ])ersons disqualified 
under the reconstruction acts were excluded — "that ordinarily 
each House would'be the proper judge of the qualifications of its 
members, but inasmuch as it was his duty, so long as the govern- 
ment was provisional, to see that the laws were obeyed, he would 
not recognize the Legislature or any of its acts until satisfactory 
evidence was produced to him that all persons disqualified by the 
reconstruction laws were deprived of seats.'' (General Meade's 
Report, page 65.) 

Upon this the several Houses proceeded to an investigation, and 
reported "that all the members of both Houses were eligible." 

This report being communicated to General Meade, he an- 
nounced that " he had no further opposition to make to their pro- 
ceeding to the business for which they were called together." 
(General ]Meade's Report, ]>ages 64 to 71.) 

It will be noticed that General Meade did not at all think he 
had no power to interfere. His power was supreme, although he 
might, as he saw fit, use the civil organization or fail to use it, at 
his pleasure, and aftej- he had used it he might overrule its action 
accordingly, as he w«s or was not, on the whole, satisfied that it 
Avas right. 

In reference to this very matter he had, on July 6th, telegraphed 
to General Grant (Report, page 35,) and inquired, "If, in case the 
Legislature failed to purge itself, he had power to control the 
matter. " 

July 8, 1868, General Grant answers: " Xo person unable to hold 
ofiice under the fourteenth amendment should be. allowed to 
qualify. District commanders are the judges of the qualifications 
of civil officers until all the requirements of the different acts of 
Congress to complete reconstruction of the seceded States are 
fully complied with." 

General Rawlins, Chief of Staff, also telegraphed a reply con- 
cluding thus: 

" The reconstruction acts are to be construed liberally, to the end 
that all the intents thereof, to wit: the reestablishment of civil gov- 
ernment in the States lately in rebellion, may be fully and per- 
fectly carried out, and it would seem that persons ineligible to hold 
ofiice under their provisions should not be permitted to defeat 
them." 

General Meade, in his dispatch of July 18, 1868, to General 
Grant, informing him what he had determined to do, to not re- 
gard the action of the two Houses as final, says: 

"My judgment, therefore, is to acquiesce in the decision of the 
Senate (and House) and leave to Congress such action as may^ 
hereafter be deemed proper, in case the Senate (and House) has* 
failed to comply with the law," and concludes liis disi)atch tlius: 

" What I desire to know is, whether in your judgment my duty 
requires me to overrule the deliberate act of the Senate, and judge 
for myself on the qualifications of the members. 



32 

"I have no doubt of my power in tlie premises, but do not feel 
that I am called on to do more than I have done." (General 
Meade's Eeport, itnge 38.) 

It is very apparent, therefore, that while General Meade was 
disposed under the circumstances to acquiesce in the decision of 
the two Houses, lie had no doubt of his power to interfere; that 
in fact he did not feel called on to overrule the action of the body 
to which he had referred it, but submitted the whole to the judg- 
ment of Congress. 

The "judgment of Congress" is announced bv the act of De- 
cember 22, 1869. 

This act has for its whole purpose the intent to repair tlie mis- 
take made by Major General Meade, in permitting the very body 
to be purged to be made up in the first instance of "those who were 
to be excluded by the jiurging process. 

It is generally contended tiuit the Congress of the United States, 
as a means of curing the mistake of Major General JMeade, in 
taking as conclusive of eligibility the deliberate legislative judg- 
ment of the several Houses as ]>olitical bodies, has been guilty of 
the absurdity of making tlie judgment of tlK.- very men who are 
charged to be ineligil)le, the sole criterion of eligibility. 

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the body itself, and holding 
that not conclusive. Congress has made each member the judge of 
his own eligil)ility. What the whole body deliberately failed to 
do is left to be done, and that without appQpl, by the very indi- 
vidual members whom it is charged were improperly admitted. 
So preposterous a conclusion ought to liave very clear and positive 
language in the law to support it, and ought only to be arrived at 
when the Avords of the law inevitably compel such a construction. 

The act of December 22 has not in it a single word limiting the 
power of the general commanding, save that it, as did also the act 
of June 2o, 1868, contemplates that the Legislature shall be con- 
vened by the order of the Governor. 

It would be a gross misconception of this law to construe it by 
itself. It must he read and understood in connection with the 
other acts iipon the same subject. 

Its title announces that it is an act to "promote the reconstruc- 
tion of Georgia." 

It assumes that the reconstruction of the State is still incom- 
plete ; that the government existing in the State is still provisional, 
and "subject, "in the words of the act of July 19, 1867, "in all re- 
spects, to the military commander of the district," and "to the 
paramount authority of Congress," and is to be construed as ad- 
ditional and supplemental to the reconstruction acts, and not as 
an independent act. It leaves, therefore, the authority of the 
Military Commander precisely where the otlier acts placed it, ex- 
cept as that authority is modified by the act itself. 

The oath prescribed is merely cumulative, an additional safe- 
guard in aid of the powers of the General Commanding. 

It is a fundamental idea of the whole reconstruction policy, that 
no person shall hold office in tlie late rebel States Avho has held 
office and then afterward engaged in rebellion, unless he be relieved 
from disabilities by n, two-thirds vote of Congress. 

And it is trifling with that whole policy to permit, if there be 



33 

any possible means to prevent it, tlie very first Legislature, before 
reconstruction is complete, and while tl)e military jurisdiction is 
still paramount, to be organized in defiance of that policy, with 
the vain hope that after the organization is complete, tlie body, 
which so signally failed before, will itself purge itself of its ineli- 
gible members. 

So long as the State is denied representation by Congress, the 
power of tlie General Commanding is complete. He may, as did 
General Meade, in his discretion, refer the question to the Legis- 
lature, but the success of that experiment, and the subsequent ac- 
tion of Congress, has notbeensuchas to justify the repetition of the 
farce, much less to infer that such was the intent of Congress. 

The act, so far from making the oath of tlie member conclusive, 
or contemplating that the question shall be left to the bodies after 
they are organized, when fairly considered, has directly the oppo- 
site meaning. 

It provides (section 1 ) that the Legislature shall proceed to or- 
ganize "under the laws of the United States." 

It provide-s further (section 4) that the persons so declared elected 
"and entitled to seats, and who sliall take the oaths provided, 
shall," &c. 

It provides (section 3 ) tliat it shall be illegal to prevent any per- 
son elected as aforesaid, who has taken one of the oaths prescribed, 
and otherwise complied with tliis act, from participating, &c. 

It provides (section 6) that it shall be illegal and revolutionary 
to exclude any one elected as aforesaid, and otherwise qualified, 
from participation because of his race or color. 

By section 4 it is not enough, by the very terms of the act, that 
he shall have been elected and taken the oaths, he must be entitled 
to a seat. 

It is not enough, by section 5, that lie shall have taken t!ie oath, 
he must have otherwise complied with the provisions of the law. 

It is not enough, by section 5, that he is elected, to make it il- 
legal to exclude him from his race or color. He must be otherwise 
qualified. 

If the taking of the oath is to be conclusive, why should the Con- 
gress also say "and be entitled to a seat," "have otherwise com- 
plied," and "he be otherwise qualified?" 

It is a fair mode of consideration to assume that each word 
and plirase of an act has a meaning, and there can be no con- 
ceivable reason why the act should say "elected," "take the 
oaths," "be entitled to a seat," "and be otherwise qualified," 
unless it was meant that there might be cases where one has been 
elected and taken the oath and yet not be. entitled to a seat ; es- 
pecially is this construction proper if it be considered that the 
v/hole necessity for the act grows out of the fact that in July, 
1868, not only many individual members were sworn in who Avere 
ineligible, but a majority of the two houses determined, after (as 
it was said) full investigation, that there were no ineligible mem- 
bers in either house. 

That the oath of the members is conclusive is simply absurd. 
It is the ordinary course of legislative bodies to inquire into the 
eligibility of members after they have taken the oath. The Geor- 
gia constitution requires that each member shall swear that he 
E 



S4 

lias not obtained his election illegally. Is that oath conclasive ?' 
May not the house investigate the facts, and if they be found 
otherwise, may it not declare him illegally elected ? The only 
question there can be, under the law, is, whether the poAver to de- 
termine the question is not in the body itself^ 

Ordinarily, as General Meade and General Rawlins say, and as- 
the practice is, this is a power in the body itself, and, without 
question, tlie Commanding General might, as did General Meade, 
in his discretion, refer it to them. But so long as the reconstruc- 
tion laws are not fully com])lied with, it is the right of the Gen- 
eral Commanding to see to it that the laws are complied with, and 
under the experience of July, 1868, and the action of Congress, it 
would seem that in such a question as this, so vital to the organ- 
ization of the Legislature, so distasteful as this rule of ineligibility 
has i)roven to the reactionary party, that its final decision ought 
to be neither with the member himself nor with the body which 
has in a former trial proven so unwilling to enforce the rule upon 
its members. 

To permit one who is ineligible to take part in the oagcinization 
of the liody which is to decide his case, may not be a very great 
evil, but when tlie charge of ineligibility includes a member, it is 
obvious tliat, if they be permitted to become members in ftict, it will 
be almost impossible to unseat them. 

Ordinarily there is no other method, because there is no superior 
power; but in the status- of affiiirs as they exist now in Georgia, 
tiiere is such a power, and an occasion plainly calling for its in- 
terference. 

What is to be gained- in the promotion of reconstruction by re- 
peating the proceedings of July, 1868? With the act of Congress- 
staring them in the face, that no person was eligible to office whO' 
had held office before the rebellion, and thereafter engaged in re- 
bellion, these very men delit>erately took the oath of office, and a 
majority of each house declared them all eligible. Congres& 
has reversed the proceedings, declared the Houses not properly or- 
ganized, provided for a reorganization, and it is contended that of 
necessity tlie same process of individual judgment and organized 
indorsement shall be repeated, and this, too, with a paramount 
authority looking on and seeing with its own eyes a repetition of 
the sham of July, 1868, actually progressing. 

So much u[)on the tirst brancii of the question, the power of the 
general commanding to "investigate" tlie question of ineligibil- 
ity, and to prevent tlie failure of the whole Congressional scheme 
by the recklessness of tiiose who are ready to move heaven and 
earth to work its discomfiture. 

But there is a second question. There a.re from fifteen to eigh- 
teen of those declared elected by General Meade who have neg- 
lected, refused, and are doubtless unable to take the oath, and 
who are by express language of the law declared to be ineligible.. 
There are from ten to fifteen more who 7uay be found ineligible by 
the commission now sitting. The question arises, Shall the House 
proceed to (trganize with only such of its legal members as are liere 
and have taken the oath, or shall those who received the next 
highest vote at the election be notified to appear, and if they are 



do 

eligible be permitted to take the oatli and participate in tlie or- 
ganization? 

There can be no question that it is the law of (leoruia that the 
votes cast at an election for one who is inelip,ible to the ])Osition 
are not to be counted, and it is the dvity of the Governor who 
issues the commission, if he be satisfied that the highest man is 
ineligible, to give the commission to the next highest who is 
eligible. 

He is dechu-ed by the code to be the person legally elected, and 
he is entitled to the certificate of election. 

The proclamation of General jSfeade only pnri)orts to he based 
upon tlie returns, and such was in truth tlie basis of the order. 
Tt is not at all leased on the eligibility of the persons named, but 
upon the simple fact that the returns show the persons named to 
have received the highest vote. 

Had the question of eligibility been presented to General Meade 
before tliat proclamation was made — had the board upon whose 
report it is founded taken the eligilnlity of the persons named 
into consideration, perhaps the list would have been very different, 
since, by the law of Georgia, they would have been compelled to 
<le(!lare elected in every case where the liighest was ineligible the 
person who was next highest if he was eligible. Such was not, 
however, the course then pursued, though it was a course per- 
fectly consonant with the law of the State. 

That tlie general commanding may do now what might have 
been done then is unquestionable, unless there be something in 
the act of December 22, 1869, forbidding this and prescribing a 
different course. What is the fact? 

Tiie bill directs the Governor to convene by proclamation those 
declared elected by General Meade's order of June 25, 1868. And 
it further provides that when the members ''so elected," not so 
"declared elected," shall convene, each ''member" and each and 
every person "claiming to be elected" sliall take the oath, &c., 
and every person "claiming to be so elected who shall refuse, de- 
cline, neglect, or be unable to take the oath, shall not be admitted 
to a seat or to participate in the proceedings," but shall be "deemed 
ineligible to such seats." 

Section 3 provides that if any person '-claiming" to be elected 
as aforesaid — that is, to a seat in the Senate or House — shall take 
the oath falsely, &c. 

The whole language of the bill is evidently used in reference to 
the code of Georgia, which declares that the second highest is the 
person elected if the "highest" is ineligible, and clearly contem- 
plates that no person ineligible, though he may claim to be 
"elected," is not in fact "so elected." It will be noticed that the 
words so often used in the act are not "so declared elected," but 
"so elected," or '"claiming to be so elected." The word "so" 
does not refer to the proclamation, but "so elected," and claiming 
to be so elected, refers to the Senate or House of Representatives 
respectively, and the word "so" is used to save the frequent repe- 
tition of those words. 

The persons elected to the Senate and House of llepresentatives 
of Georgia are, by the law of Georgia, tliose who got the highest 



:^6' 

vote if they are eligible, and those wlio got the next highest vote 
in cases where the highest are ineligibh\ 

These classes, and these only, are the persons who fill the de- 
scription of section o, to wit: '"The persons elected as aforesaid — 
that is, elected to the Senate and House respectively — who shall 
take the oath and shall proceed in said Senate and Honse, to 
wdiicli they have been elected, to reorganize the same." 

Under the laws of Georgia, nobody who is ineligible is elected. 
If an ineligible person gets the highest vote, he is not elected; but 
the next highest is. 

And the peculiar language of the act of December 22, 1869, is a 
clear indication that it was drawn with special reference to the 
Georgia law, which the unseating of the negroes and the admis- 
sion of the next highest as the persons elected, had brought prom- 
inently before the eyes of Congress. 

That the general commanding has, by virtue of his assignment 
to the command to the "■district" of Georgia, full powers in the 
premises is, as has been shown, unquestionable; and that the act 
of December 22, 1869, does not, in this respect, qualify those 
powers, is equally clear; and there would appear to be, therefore, 
no good reason why the law of Georgia should not, in the discre- 
tion of the general commanding, be applied to the case. 

It will close up the whole matter; it Avill put the new govern- 
ment in the hands of its friends; it will secure the fifteenth 
amendment; it will enable the friends of the new constitution to 
carry its provisions into effect in good faith, and close up rapidly 
and healthfully the sore which since 1865 has been irritating the 
body politic. 

To secure such ends a liberal interpretation of the reconstruc- 
tion acts is specifically required, and would be in accordance with 
the whole policy of Congress, to wit, to set the new government 
afloat under the guidance of the friends of reconstruction, and 
not under the control of those wlio have in every conceivable way 
tried to thwart and obstruct its success. Many of its most im- 
portant provisions are in the eyes of these enemies to it odious in 
the extreme, and it is saying but little to suggest that they will 
not give it a fair and liberal trial. If, unfortunately, these men 
succeed, their past course indicates that they will be no true 
friends to its fundamental ideas, and a wise public policy would 
seem to indicate that while the hand of authority is still raised 
the door for revolution should be closed. 

Section 121 of the code of Georgia, to which reference has been 
made as fixing the effect of ineligibility, is in these words: "If, at 
any popular election to fill any office, the person elected is ineli- 
gible under one of the foregoing rules, the person having the next 
highest number of votes, who is eligible when a plurality elects, 
shall be declared elected and be qualified and commissioned to 
such ofiice." 

It will be noticed that this act applies to every popular election 
to fill any office, whenever a plurality elects. 

At the date of the code, December 19, 1860, the Governor and 
judges of the superior courts were required to be elected by a 
majority vote ; all other olficers were simply to beelected. So too is 
the constitution of 1865. The constitution of 1868, which addots tlie 



code as the system of law, provides that the person having the 
majoritv of tlie whole number of votes cast, shall be declared 
dulv elected Governor. Tlic only otlier officiu's of the State elec- 
tive by the peo])lc are the members of the general assembly, comity 
officers, and justices of tlie peace; these, the constitution says, 
sliall be elected by the qualified voters, &c. The fact that of the 
several elections provided for, to wit : Governor, members of the 
Legislatnre, county officers, and justices of the peace, only one is 
required to have the majority of all the votes cast, is conclusive 
that it was the intent that at all elections except for Governor, a 
plurality elects. 

Ruch has alwavsbeen the understanding of thelaw in this State, and 
snch was the rule adopted Ijv General Meade in issuing theproclama- 
tion of Jime 2-5, 1868, as will abundantly appear liy an examination 
of the returns. The law of Georgia has always required a major- 
ity in the case of the election of the " Governor," and, for awhile, 
of judges of the superior court, but never for any other officer. 
Such at least has always been the practice. It is based not only 
on the general rules of the common law, but on the rule that, as 
the constitution required specially a ''majority" in the cases of 
Governor, it left other elections to be decided by a plurality vote. 
It follows, therefore, that, under the law of Georgia, if the mem- 
ber of the Legislature having the highest vote is ineligible, the 
person having "the hext highest, who is eligible, is to be declared 
elected and to be qualified and commissioned to such office. 

Ordinarilv, as I have said, the duty of investigating the eligi- 
bility of meinbers of the Legislature is with that body, and, Avith- 
out question, if a person nominally elected is found ineligible, that 
body would declare the next higliest elected and give him the seat. 

SiichAvas the action of the Legislature in July, 1868, in the case 
of ""Bradlev," senator. 

Bradley was found ineligible, by reason of having been con- 
victed of "felony," and his seat was given to Lester, the next 
highest at the election. 

This was done before the colored members were expelled, and 
on this point the action of the senate in that case was universally 
acquiesced in. 

indeed, there never has been in the State any doubts of the ap- 
plication of tins law to the Legislature, until the present crisis 
has given it birth. 

If'the conunanding general has the power, as most nn(iuestion- 
ably he has, to "investigate" the eligibility of a member and 
"decide" upon it, and exclude him, it would seem to follow (as 
by the ordinance he is required to issue certificates of election) 
that the right of the next highest immediately to be declared 
elected l)y him, must be the inevitable consequence. 

The power to investigate and decide involves the power to 
cause the decision to be c^irried into its full effect ; the exclusion 
of tiie ineligible member is l)ut a part of the ejfect; the full deci- 
sion is not only that the ineligible person is not elected, but that 
the eligible one is. 



38 



APPENDIX C. 



The question whetlier a person who at the election held on the 
20th, 21st, 22d, and 23d of April, 1868, received within liis district 
the second highest number of votes for a seat in the Legislature 
of Georgia, he Ijeing eligible thereto, is entitled to the seat in case 
the person who received the Inghest number of votes is ineligible 
under the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States, is presented in a double aspect. 

First, it is chiimed that by the express provisions of the law of 
Georgia he is so entitled. 

Secondly, it is claimed that by the general or common law on the 
subject, he is so entitled. 

On the first point, certain classes of persons are declared by the 
law of Georgia to be ineligible to office, and it is provided that 
'■' If at any popular election to fill any ofiice, the person elected is 
ineligible under the foregoing rules, the jierson receiving the next 
highest number of votes, who is eligible, whenever a plurality 
elects, shall be declared elected andbecinalified and commissioned 
to such ofiice." (Irwin's Code, page 33 and 34.) 

The only one of the foregoing rules referred to which can apply 
in this case is that which declares that "all persons from any 
cause constitutionalhj disqualified," are ineligible. 

Tlie question thus resolves itself into this : Were persons who 
had held any one of the oifices mentioned in the fourteenth amend- 
ment to the Constitution of the United States, and thereafter 
entered into the rebellion, cxmstitidionalhj disqualified for ofiice at 
the time the election of April, 1868, was'heldV 

If at that time any State constitution was in existence in 
Georgia, it must have been the constitution of 1798. 

The constitution certainly contained no such provisions as those 
of the fourteenth amendment. If the rebellion and attempted 
secession operated to destroy the State government, and with it 
the State constitution — and this seems tobe the position taken by 
Congress in providing for the reconstruction of tlie rebel States — 
then there existed at that time no State constitution by the 
])rovisi(ms of which any person, for any cause, could have been 
disqualified. 

Were such persons disqualified bvthe Constitution of the United 
states ? 

The election was held on the 20th, 21st, 22d, and 23d days of 
Aiiril, 1868. The fourteenth amendment was not declared to be a 
part of the Constitution until the 21st day of July, 1868. 

It is true tliat liy the sixtli section of the act of March 2, 1867, 
the provisions of the amendment were applied to the States lately 
in rebellion, and it was declared that "no person shall be eligible 



39 

to any office under any sucli provisional gfovernment, who would 
he disqualified from holding office under the tliird article of said 
constitutional amendment;" Imt this was a statutory provision, 
not a constitutional one; and it created a statutory disqualifica- 
tion, not a constitutional one. 

Thus it seems plain that there was then no constitution n I dis- 
qualification of any kind, on account of participation in the rebel- 
lion, and tliat, therefore, tiie above mentioned provisions of the 
statute of Georgia have no application to the case. 

The second point remains to be considered. 

In England, the country from which Ave mainly derive our ]>ar- 
liamentary law, a plurality elects, and votes are given orally. 
There, it is absolutely established by a long course of decisions 
that if notice be given of the disqualification of a candidate, every 
vote given for liim afterward is thrown away, and will be con- 
sidered as not given at all — as void — as not to be counted as 
against the person wlio receives the next liigliest vote. The ]>rin- 
ciple upon wliich this is done is a i)lain oiu'. It is this, viz : The 
electors at any election are not called ui)on by tlie law to signify 
whom they would choose to hold a given office without restriction. 
They are called upon to signify ichkh one of those who are cUciible 
they would clioose; and he who votes for an ineligible person fails 
to do tliat which tlie law calls upon him to do, and in contempla- 
tion (if law does not vote at all, 

Mucli confusion on tliis subject has arisen in the popular mind 
from the celebrated case of Wilkes and Luttrell ; but I lielieve 
tluit it will l)e found that througli that protracted struggle tlie 
principle that the candidate having the next highest number of 
votes is entitled to tiie office, in case the candidate receiving the 
highest number is ineligible, was never denied. The i)oint in issue 
Avas the question of Wilkes' eligibility; he had been ex])elled from 
the House of Commons, and had been declared ineligible to a 
reelection by a vote of that body; and it was contended that while 
that House could expel him it could not disfranehi^c him, that it 
could not make him ineligible to a reelection, that no Englishman 
could be disfranchised except by act of Parliament, the concur- 
rent action of King, Lords, and' Commons; and this point was 
finally yielded by the Government and its supporters. 

Gushing, (Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies, pp, 
66-67,) after stating the law of England, proceeds to lay down the 
law in this country, as folloAvs, viz : 

"178. In this country, it is equally true, that the election of a 
disqualified person is absolutely void ; and, in those States Avhere a 
plurality elects, and where the votes are given orally, as in Eng- 
land, votes given for a candidate after notice of his disqualifica- 
tion are thrown away, and the candidate having the next highest 
number of votes is elected. 

■•'179. In reference to elections by ballot, in Avhich secresy is the 
distinguishing feature ; and, in which, consequently, neither the 
returning officers, nor the electors themselves, are supposed to 
know f(n- whom the votes are given, until the result is declared ; it 
seems not unreasonable to consider the votes for ineligible candi- 
dates to be thrown away, in all cases, and the opiiosing candidate 
elected, where the electors know or must be presumed to know the 



40 

disability; and, in all cases where there is no such actual or pre- 
sumed knowledge, to hold the whole proceeding merely void. 

'' 180. In reference to elections, in wdiich an absolute majority is 
requisite to a choice, and in which, consequently, the whole num- 
ber of votes received is first to be ascertained, votes given for 
ineligible persons must of course be excluded from the enumera- 
tion ; for the reason that, as the whole balloting would be void, 
and all the votes excluded if they were all for such candidates, it 
would be preposterous to enumerate such votes, where they con- 
stituted only a part of the votes given in. If, in consequence of 
such exclusion, the result of the election would be different from 
what it would otherwise be, the whole proceeding must perhaps 
be held void or valid, according as the electors have actual or pre- 
sumed knowledge of the ineligibility of the persons for whom the 
excluded votes are given." 

It will be observed that a distinction is here made between votes 
given orally and those given by ballot — a distinction justly founded 
on the necessity of the case. Voters who vote orally must be noti- 
fied of the disqualification of their candidate. Those who vote by 
ballot, i e. secretly, are not entitled to actual notice. Tlie law 
laid down l)y Gushing has recently received the sanction of the 
House of Representatives of the United States. Mr. John D. 
Young was elected a member of the House, in the fortieth Con- 
gress, from the Ninth Congressional District of Kentucky, by a 
majority of votes, but he was found and declared to be ineligible 
by reason of his inability to take the prescribed oaths of office, and 
his competitor at the election, Mr. McKee, although lie re- 
ceived only a minority of the votes, was admitted to a seat in his 
stead. 

It seems to me that this precedent, coupled with the authority 
of Gushing, shonld be considered as settling the law as far as elec- 
tions held under Acts of Congress in the States lately in rebellion 
are concerned. 

But it has been said that the disability must have existed at the 
time of the election— that the candidate must have been absolutely 
and clearly ineligible at that time, and that the doctrine that the 
next highest candidate, is entitled does not apply where the disa- 
bility might be removed by act of Congress. In regard to this 
latter position, one thing seems clear, viz: it is absolutely, and 
diametrically opposed to the practice and decisions in England. 
Were it to prevail there no votes could be excluded from the count, 
and " no next highest " candidate could be entitled to an office, for 
there is, and can be, under the theory of the English Constitution, 
no disqualification which may not be removed by an act of Parlia- 
ment. 

Might it not as well be contended that votes for a notorious felon 
just convicted of his crime should be counted because by a bare 
possibility an appeal from the judgment of the court before which 
he was convicted might be taken, or a writ of error brought, and 
thereupon that judgment reversed? That the disability must have 
existed cd the time is undoubtedly true: no subsequently occurring 
disability can justify the rejection of a vote; and that the disquali- 
ification must have been clear and absolute is equally true. 

It has been said, and is undoubtedly true, that the failure of the 



41 

person who received the highest number of votes to qualify after 
the election, as hj^ refusing or neglecting to take a required official 
oath, cannot justify the rejection of the votes cast for him; hut it 
may he observed that leaving out of view the question of notice to 
the voter, the fact of such failure to qualify may become a part of 
the evidence of disqualificatio]i. 

To apply these principles to the case in question: By the sixth 
section of the act of Congress of March 2d, 1867, already cited, it 
is provided that "no person shall be eligible to any office under 
such provisional governments who would be disqualified from hold- 
ing office under the provisions of the third article of said constitu- 
tional amendment," (referring to the fourteenth amendment) thus 
putting that article in force in the rebel (States in advance of its 
adoption as a part of the Constitution of the United States. A 
disqualification for holding office was thus created by a statute of 
which every person had actual or presumed notice. Subsequent 
to tlie passage of that statute, an election was held and certain 
liersons received the highest number of votes, several of whom at 
the recent reorganization of the Legislature refused, neglected, or 
were unable to take the oath which had been provided as a test of their 
eligibilit!/, and in addition tliereto, filed with the Provisional Gov- 
ernor of the State applications to Congress for a removal of their clisa- 
bilities, thus admitting their ineligibility to office vmder the four- 
teenth amendment. It must be remembered that although the 
fourteenth amendment was not adopted until after the election at 
which these persons were elected, its provisions were in force in 
tlie States lately in rebellion by virtue of the statute, and that if 
these persons are ineligible now under the amendment, they were 
ineligible at the time of the election under the statute. It is no 
new disability which has been imposed. 

I think that the fact of the ineligibility is therefore fully proven. 

Must the electors be charged with notice of the ineligibility of 
these persons? 

They must, of course, be charged with knowledge of the law, 
and when it is remembered that the ineligibility in question grew 
out of the then and still recent events of a great civil war, in which 
the greatest interest was felt by every person living within the 
territory of the nation; grew out of jjt(Wic events of tlie most tran- 
scendent importance, to which the attention of every person was 
irresistably attracted; tliat the terms of reconstruction had been 
made the subject of excited and angry controversy, that the fact 
of the holding of office prior to the rebellion must have been a mat' 
ter of public notoriety, and the participation or non-participation 
•of any person in the rebellion must have been well known in the 
community in which he lived, I think that it is hardly possible to 
relieve the voters from the presumption of knowledge of disquali- 
fication. Therefore, under the rule laid down by Cushing, and 
under the [decision of the House of Representatives, I think that 
those who received the next highest votes to these persons are 
entitled to seats. 



42 



APPENDIX T). 



Mr. Caldwell, in his ])riiited paper, divides tlie latter i>ortion of 
it under the head of " Governor Bullock's personal attack." 

It is with great reluctance that I have obtained my own consent 
to take any notice whatever in connection with a subject of such 
grave importance as that which the honorable Judiciary Commit- 
tee now have under consideration, of anything of a personal char- 
acter. But, as Mr. Caldwell has seen fit to attribute my transmis- 
sion of a letter addressed to me by the Hon. Foster Blodgett, 
setting forth information that was conveyed to him by Mr. J^ 
Mason Rice, as a personal attack upon him, 1 will say that I believe 
the statement made by Mr. Kice to Mr. Blodgett, and to Hon. C. 
H. Prince, as alleged in that letter, is true. 

I also invite your attention to the copy of a letter (marked E) 
addressed to me by the Hon. A. L. Harris, of Atlanta, dated Feb- 
ruary 22, 1870, which refutes the assertion made by Mr. Caldwell, 
that " Mr. A. L. Harris, the C4overnor's clerk jyro tern,, and rail- 
road supervisor, said to me that I should have any place I wanted 
in his department if I would yield my opposition to the Governor."' 

E. 

ATI.ANTA, Ga., February 22, 1870. 
To His Excellency R. B. Bullock^ Governor: 

Sir: In a pamphlet purporting to be the " Argument of Hon. J, 
H. Caldwell and Hon. J. E, Bryant before the judiciary Commit- 
tee of the United States Senate," occur these words from Mr, 
Caldwell : 

"Mr. A. L. Harris, the Governor's clerk jyro tern., and Railroad 
Supervisor, said to me that I should have any place I wanted in 
his department if I would yield my opposition to the Governor." 

The above statement is entirely incorrect. I remember one af- 
ternoon, at the JSTational Hotel, having seen Rev. J. H. Caldwell 
and Mr. J. Mason Rice in conversation, and just after Mr. Rice 
left Mr. Caldwell I passed that way, when Mr. Caldwell asked me 
if, provided he supported Governor Bullock and the Republican 
party, he and his family would be taken care of on the State Road; 
or, in other words, would they get good paying positions? 

I told him to see the Superintendent, as he alone had the power 
of making appointments. He intimated that he would like the 
Senatorship for the long term, while he desired his two brothers 
and their sons, and his own son, to have lucrative positions on the 
road. 



43 



I never said to Mr. Cakhvell that lie -should have any place he 
wanted in nn- department," neither did 1 say an\ thin- j.t that 
teiun- or that could be construed into anything ot the kind. 

Very respectfully, a. l. HARRIS. 



I am also informed that one or two of the brothers and a son of 
Mr Caldwell are or were employed on the State railroad. 

Each one of the persons whose names are prmted on Mr. CnM- 
well's pamphlet as a "delegation'— namely, J. E. bryant, J. M. 
Caldwell, C. K. Osgood, A. J. Williams,^ L. Angier, and John 
]3owles— are either disappointed aspirants for position undei the 
late legislative organization, warm personal friends ot Mr. Joshua 
Hill, or persons who fear an investigation by the^Legislatiire. 

Mr Brvant, as is well known, is the defeated Democratic can- 
didate for Speaker. Mr. Caldwell is disappointed ni Senatorial 
aspirations. Mr. C. K. Osgood and Mr A J. Wi liams are very 
clever gentlemen, who believe that Mr. Joshua Hill is the greatest 
statesman that the world ever produced. Mr. John Bowles is the 
son-in-law of ^Ir. Hill. He was collector ot internal revenue at 
Au^^usta under appointment from ex-President Johnson, but was 
removed by President Grant, and a worthy colored man appointed 
in Ills dTHjCG • 

The party whose name appears in this list as "aST. L. -A-ngier, 
State Treasurer," will necessarily receive a much more extended 

^^Ilem-esents, with the others, a paper, entitled ''Governor Bul- 
lock's Financial Operations," every word of which has been 
iterated and reiterated through the Democratic newspapers ot 
Georgia in various ways and shapes since Mr. Angier allied him- 
self with the revolutionizing Democrats of the Legislature. 

Every charge in it has been publicly refuted, and need not here 
receive attention, except the reissue of a statement formerly made 
bv him which I have not heretofore noticed, namely : 'On the 
21st day of November, 1868, the cashier ot the Georgia N ationa 
Bank presented the Governor's draft on the lourth National 
Bank of New York for $25,000, and voluntarily stated that it was 
to cover Governor Bullock's individual indebtedness to tins 

Tn answer to this I invite your attention to the copy of a letter 
from the cashier of the Georgia National Bank that came to me 
about the time of the publication of this matter last summer, and 
which has not previously been used by myself. This letter is 
appended below: 

Georgia National Bank, 

Atlanta, Ga., August 29, 1869. 
To His Excellency, GovenLor Bullock: . , , , . . ,, 

De\u Sir : Referring to Treasurer Angier's letter to the peo- 
ple of Georgia, of August 27th, published in this morning's Mic 
Ere, I lind the following statement : • , , ^, a. 

-in contrast to this pitiful amount received by the Treasurer, 
but since paid into the Treasury, that officer will present to the 



44 

public a few instances of the illegal uses of the State funds by the 
Executive for his own l.ienefit. On the I'lst Xoveniber, 186S, 
when tlie State had sulHcient funds on liand to meet all reason- 
ubh^ expenses, (having on the day previous drawn twenty-five 
tliousand dollars) ($L>5,(JU0,) the (Jasliier of tlie Georgia Ntitional 
Ijank presented tlie Governor's draft on the Temporary Loans for 
tH-cntii-Jifc thuuxitml dollars ($25,(J00) mon\ and voluntarily stated 
that Governor Bullock was indebted to their Bank seccnteen thou- 
mral dollars ($17,()0(),) and this twenty-five thousand dollars loas 
to cover ivp mid make good to the Bank the Governor''s individual in- 
debtedness, although" said deposit was placed to the credit of the 
State. The State was thus forced to pay, as per statement of 
Cashier, nearly eleven per cent, on this twenty-five thousand dol- 
lars, drawn solely as an offset, for the time being, against the in- 
dividual deficit of the Governor." 

In regard to the State having on hand sufiicient funds to meet 
all reasonable expenses, &c., 1 have to say, that the Treasury 
balance, as appears by the Ijooks of the Bank, onthe21st November, 
1868, after the draft of $l'5,()(J() had been deposited to his credit, 
was $35,308 95, and that between that time and the 30th of the same 
month, we paid his checks to the amount of $24,286 50. In addi- 
tion to that amount we paid his checks during the first week of 
December to the amount of $19,840 15. From this you will see 
that the $25,000 was positively necessary to meet the requirements 
of the Tre;isury, and was drawn from the Bank in less than ten 
days, and had not the draft been deposited, his account would 
have been largely overdrawn. 

The statement contained in the paragraph quoted above that 
when "-the Cashier of the Georgia National Bank presented the 
Governor's draft on the teinporary loans for $25,000 more, volun- 
tarily stated that Governor Bullock was indebted to their bank 
$17,000, and this $25,000 was to cover up and make good to the 
Bank the Governor's individual indebtedness," I pronounce as 
positively untrue. 

I deem it but simple justice to you, as well as to myself, that I 
make this statement. 

Yery respectfully, your obedient servant, 

E. L. JONES. 



The second statement is as follows: "He has paid out of the 
State treasury nearly two thousand dollars to light Kimball's 
Opera-house, when tlie building had not been used for State pur- 
poses over six times at night ; none of the State ofiices being kept 
open at nights." This, of course, amounts to a direct charge 
that, with my knowledge and consent, the State treasury was 
charged with a large sum of money to pay for liglit which was not 
used for the benefit of the State. To show that tliis statement 
was made by Mr. Angier, with a knowledge of its falsity and with 
a deliberate purpose to misrepresent facts which were known to 
him, I ask attention to the following papers : 



45 

Atlanta, Ga., Septembei- 8, 1869. 
Charles C Bodes, Esq., Supcriiitendent Atlanta Gas Ln/ht C'o)vp<(iii/, 
Atlanta, Ga. 
Dear Sih: Please iiilovin me as to how tlie p:as pipes and meters 
are located in Kimball's Ojtera House, used as the State Capitol, 
and by whom the gas used in the different stores and rooms in the 
luiilding is paid for. 

Very respectfully, yours, 

J. A. BURNS, 
Keeper, &g. 



Atlanta Gaslight Company's Office, SepA. 10, 1869. 
J. A. Burns, Esq., Keeper of Capitol, &c.: 

Sir: Yours of 8th asking how the gas pipes are arranged and 
meters located, and by whom the gas is paid for in the Kimball 
Opera House, used as the State Capitol, is at hand, and, in answer, 
have to say that the gas used in the cafe, billiard rooms, and res- 
taurant pusses through a distinct meter set expressly for that pur- 
pose, and is paid for by Mr. Thompson. The gas used on the fifth 
floor or dormitories has also a separate meter, and is paid for by 
Mr. H. I. Kimball. The gas for store Xo. 3 has a separate meter, 
and is paid for by Mr. Walker. The telegraph ofilice has a meter, 
gas paid for by the telegraph company. The gas used in stores 
Xos. 5 and 6 passes through one meter for both, and was paid for 
by Mr. Cook when he occupied them, since then what has been 
used has been paid for by Mr. Kimball. The State has two large 
meters, one of which supplies the House of Representatives, 
Senate Chamber, Caucus Rooms, and corridors leading thereto on 
the second tloor, and the otfices of Controller General, Secretary 
of State, Surveyor, and corridors on the first floor. The other 
supplies the Library, Court Room and Treasurer's Office on first 
floor, and all other portions of the building used by the State. 

The gas consumed during the session "of the Legislature last 
winter, and what has been used since in the different ofiices and 
corridors, has l)een paid for by the State, which bills have been 
and are yet rendered (luarterly. The other consumers settle 
monthly. There are seven meters in the building, and no gas 
passes through either of the State meters but what is used for 
State purposes. 

Respectfullv, yours, 

CHARLES C. RODES, 
Superintendent Athrnta (Tasli(j]it Company. 



Atlanta, Georgia, i^eiAember 10, 1869. 
Mr. J. A. Barns, Keeper, ttc. 

Dear Sir: We have read the foregoing letter to you, from Mr. 
Rodes. We put up the gas pipes, chandeliers, &c., used in light- 
ing Kimball's Opera House, used as the State Capitol; and there- 



46 

fore, of our own knowledge, can say that statements of Mr. Rodes 
as to the location of the meters and rooms snpplied throngli tiiem 
are correct. 

Respectfully yours, &c., 

HUNNICUTT & ZELLINGRUTII, 

Fhmihcrs and Gas Fillers. 



Atlanta, Ga., Odoher 8, 1869. 
His Excellexcy Rufus B. Bullock, 

Governor of Georgia^ Atlanla. Ga.: 
Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith a communication 
from Charles C. Rodes, Superintendent of the Atlantic Gas Works, 
in relation to the location of the gas-pipes and meters in the 
"Opera House," used as the State Capitol. In conversation with 
Mr. Rodes, he said that he had explained to Hon. ]^. L. Angier, 
Treasurer, the manner in which gas was supplied to the different 
rooms in the "Opera House," and by whom it was paid for, giving 
him, in substance, all the information contained in his (Rodes) 
letter to me herewith transmitted. Mr. Rodes made this expla- 
nation to Hon. i^. L. Angier sometime last spring, and therefore 
the Treasurer was in possession of these facts when he wrote his 
address "To the People of Georgia," under date of August 27, 
1869, and published in the Atlanta Netv Era. 
I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

J. A. BURNS, 
Keeper Public Property., dec. 



One niovhig motive for the action of Angier, in liis ellbrts to prevent 
a full rofogiiition of the reorganization oftlie Legislature, is the great 
probability that he will not be retained as Treasurer. 

At the next session of the Superior Court, tlie suit of the State 
against Angier and Ills bondsmen will be called for trial, and lie and 
his bondsmen will be called upon to pay over 820,000 pains, lines, and 
penalties, for liis violation of law in using tiie State's inonej' and 
allowing otliers to use tlie same tor liis private b(!netlt. 

3iucli more could be said not to tlic credit of ^lessrs. Cahlwell, 
Bryant, .Vngier, and Bowles, but I forbear. 



LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 



e 014 418 844 5 | 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




Hollingier 
pH S3 






